Reconciling competing values of urban open space in two national capitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protecting the heritage values of urban open space in the face of significant change to the surrounding urban structure highlights a particular tension between two apparently conflicting goals of sustainable development. On one hand the imagined city of the future is more compact as urban designers, planners and urban researchers advocate to increase the density of cities. On the other hand, large tracts of urban open space, left undeveloped for its scenic quality, conservation, heritage or recreation values, provide innumerable ecosystem services. This paper explores the history of the development of policies for open space systems gazetted by national governments in Ottawa and Canberra, the respective capitals of Canada and Australia. It examines how these cities have approached their metropolitan planning strategies and comments on the way urban landscapes have been accommodated in future growth through strategic plans and policies. In doing so it identifies the challenges faced when urban open spaces, deemed to be of national heritage significance, compete for increasingly scarce government resources and face increasing pressures from urban consolidation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".